s
Democrats go through their biennial rite of premature victory
celebrations, they are inviting defeat again by obsessing on polls about
how many congressional seats are in play rather than on explaining to
the American people what a Republican victory on Nov. 7 would mean to
the nation.

In the last three elections, George W. Bush has
claimed mandates for his policies even when there were questions about
the legitimacy of Republican victories. In Election 2000, Bush brushed
aside the fact that he lost the popular vote to Al Gore and pressed
ahead with a right-wing agenda.

The Republican congressional victories in Election 2002
convinced Bush that the voters were behind his plans for preemptive wars. He
called Election 2004 his accountability moment, ratifying both his invasion of
Iraq and his expansion of executive powers.

So, there should be little illusion how Bush would
interpret a Republican upset victory on Nov. 7. It would be taken as a public
embrace of his authoritarian vision for Americas future and as an endorsement
of the neoconservative commitment to wage World War III against Islamic
militants around the world.

If the GOP keeps control of Congress, Bush would be
strongly tempted to double up on his bloody wager in Iraq with military attacks
on Iran and Syria. That expanded war would guarantee reprisals by radicalized
Muslims around the world and thus draw the United States into a virtually
endless conflict.

At home, the consequences of indefinite war would be fatal,
too, to the already wounded American democratic Republic. Bush would translate a
GOP victory into public acceptance of his de facto elimination of key
constitutional rights and his creation of an imperial presidency.

Though the major U.S. news outlets have paid scant
attention  and the Democrats have mostly ducked the issue  Bush already has
put in place the framework for a modern-day totalitarian state.

Indeed, the new Military Commissions Act of 2006, enacted
on Oct. 17, establishes what amounts to a parallel legal system under Bushs
control that permits the indefinite jailing of both citizens and non-citizens
who are deemed enemies of the state.

The law specifically strips non-U.S. citizens of habeas
corpus  the right to a fair trial  but American citizens caught up in
Bushs legal system also would be denied the right to challenge their
incarceration, effectively eliminating their habeas corpus rights, too.

Under the new law, Bush could put any person into the
military tribunal process for allegedly aiding Americas enemies and the
detainee would be barred from filing any motions whatsoever to the civilian
courts.

So, while the New York Times has assured Americans that
they would still possess their habeas corpus rights, that amounts to
semantics since the laws court-stripping provision means that American citizens
might technically possess their rights but couldnt exercise them.

Bushs parallel legal system also sharply curtails the
rights of detainees when they are put on trial before a military tribunal,
permitting secret evidence and even coerced testimony to be used against them.
[For details, see Consortiumnews.coms Who
Is Any Person in Tribunal Law.]

Though few Americans understand the full scope of the laws
provisions  or what World War III against many of the worlds one billion
Muslims would entail  Bush would surely interpret a Republican congressional
victory as a personal mandate to proceed in those directions.

Court Prospects

If Republicans keep control of the House and Senate, the
chances of the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the Military Commissions Act
also would be reduced. The court, which rebuffed Bushs earlier administrative
version on a 5-4 vote, would weigh both the congressional approval and the
voters acquiescence in judging the laws legality.

While the 5-4 majority critical of the tribunals might hold
through a second round of judicial review, Election 2006 might influence the
decision of some justices who are always more political than they acknowledge.

Bushs assertion of unfettered presidential powers would
stand even a better chance if one of the majority justices leaves the bench due
to age or illness. Continued Republican control of the Senate probably would
enable Bush to appoint a justice who would bend to Bushs theory of his
authority.

Already Bush holds the upper hand if a vacancy occurs among
the five justices who struck down the earlier version of the tribunals. Given
the right-wing makeup of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia,
the new military commissions are likely to pass muster there (as they did in
their earlier form).

Thus, an absolute majority of the U.S. Supreme Court would
be needed for reversal, and the four pro-Bush justices  John Roberts, Samuel
Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas  would be enough to save the law on a
tie vote.

Considering everything thats at stake, many Democrats
appear to be devoting way too much energy to their anticipation of victory  and
to an obsession with polls about which seats are in play  rather than in
sealing the deal with the voters.

Ive moved from optimistic to giddy, Gordon R. Fischer, a
former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, told the New York Times.

I know a lot of people are in somersault land, said Rep.
Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee, although he didnt count himself among them.

Democrats also seem to be hoping for victory by default as
Republicans sink under the weight of chaos in Iraq and corruption scandals on
Capitol Hill.

I think we have the best chance to take over simply
because of the pileup of disasters, said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. [NYT,
Oct. 22, 2006]

Granted, some Democrats have issued cautionary warnings
against over-confidence and many remember their premature celebrations in 2004
when the early exit polls showed Sen. John Kerry winning the White House.
Opinion polls two weeks before an election mean even less, especially given the
GOPs reputation for hardball election tactics.

But there is an ominous sense of déjà vu as Democrats let
Republicans raise alarms on the Right about the dangers of a Democratic victory,
while Democrats let up on their warnings to liberals, independents and even
constitutional conservatives about what a Republican victory would foreshadow.

If the last two weeks of Campaign 2006 are dominated by
news of Democrats buying confetti and icing champagne  rather than on Bushs
grim vision of endless war and elimination of constitutional rights  chances
for a Republican comeback could grow exponentially.

Not only would Democrats and independents be less inspired
to go to the polls but the Republican base could be galvanized by a desperate
battle to protect President Bush. Already, right-wing radio stations, Web sites
and TV commentators are hammering home the image of cocky Democrats high-fiving
each other and making behind-the-scenes plans for a triumphant transition of
power.

Nothing motivates the American Right more than the chance
of forcing Democrats to choke on their confetti and to gag on their champagne.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from
Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at
secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at
Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine,
the Press & 'Project Truth.'